Extension tube and teleconverter

That Sigma should be a good lens--I have a 70 f/2.8 Sigma macro prime and it is excellent. Most manufacturers that make macro prime lenses (not zooms with "macro settings") make a decent product since the intended market is photographers who have higher standards for quality than the average family photographer who isn't making the optical demands that a serious photographer is more likely to make, but is extremely sensitive to price. In your case, the lack of auto focus isn't much of a loss since auto focus is frequently frustrating with macro work.

The lack of auto focus isn't much of a loss since auto focus is frequently frustrating with macro work.

My thought exactly. If I can retain aperture control, the rest is acceptable.

In your case, the lack of auto focus isn't much of a loss since auto focus is frequently frustrating with macro work.

 

I'd say that's a slightly broad statement. It's true that AF systems can often struggle with very close subjects - but when they do work, they can be important, especially for a moving subject such as a small insect. I've also dealt with hand-held close-up shots with AF handling my body sway and plants drifting in the breeze, though it certainly gets less reliable the closer you get. Using trap focus (for those bodies with it) is another alternative - lock the focus distance, then move yourself or the subject until the AF system acknowledges they're in focus. Not perfect, but not useless either. Less important if you're doing a tiny static subject and you're tripod-mounted.

 

Having camera-driven focus does help if you're going down the cheap automated focus stacking route - either built-in like the D850 or using something like Helicon Remote (other camera driving software is available) which will automatically shift the AF point through a series of images. If you're fully manual, you can't do that, at least unless you have a driven macro rail.

 

So I wouldn't say that an automated focus system has no benefits for macro compared with a manual one. But I also wouldn't lose sleep over it if I only did the occasional macro shot and wanted to save money.

"No way I could install it on anything except mirrorless (which I don't possess). I think other lenses will have the same issue with flange distance."

 

- That's why you need a bellows unit to use enlarging lenses. Plus enlarging lenses don't come with any built-in focusing mechanism. (Read exactly what I wrote again please.)

 

Enlarging lenses are so cheap that you could probably buy a used bellows, a couple of enlarging lenses and a 39mm adapter flange for less than the cost of a macro lens - and a bellows will allow you to get more magnification than any macro lens.

Actually mine is not entirely an 'enlarger lens', instead it's a regular Zeiss lens adapted for enlarger. It's got focusing ring, aperture ring and works like a charm on my camera with M39 thread.

 

But bellows aren't gonna make the whole setup terribly portable or compact, will they?

I view the whole macro thing in stages, which are related to cost and complexity

• Close up lens/filters
  

• Even though the quality of the close up lens/filters is not great, for me it is "good enough." Remember, this is the cheapest option.
  
  
• Available in a 3 lens kit, for the basic 1-element lenses.
  
  

• Better optical quality 2-element close up lenses are available, for a higher cost. But these are not as common/easy to find as the basic 1 element kits.
  
  

• + Cheapest and easiest entry into the closeup world.
  
  
• + Close up lenses do not affect the aperture or lens coupling to the body.
  
  
   
  
  
• + Most compact to carry.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Lower optical quality, for the 1-element lens.
  
  
• - You buy for a specific diameter lens. So if you have several different diameter lenses, you may need more than 1 kit, which then increases the cost.
  
  
  • This is one reason in the old days, some camera manufacturers standardized on a single filter size for the common lenses. Nikon used 52mm filters for 24mm to 200mm. I think there were several other manufacturers who had a similar 1 or 2 standard filter size.
    
    

• Extension tubes.
  

• + For the old manual focus lenses, it was a great option, as the tube was quite simple, with maybe only an auto aperture lever. Good option if you have manual lenses.
  
  
   
  
  
• - The new electronic tubes, for the electronic lenses, are more complicated and expensive.
  
  
• - Affects the aperture.
  
  
• - Affects the lens coupling to the body.
  
  
• - Comes in fixed lengths. To get a different length, you need to swap or stack the tubes.
  
  

• Teleconverter
  

• + Gives you more working distance than any of the other options, except for getting a long focal length macro lens.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Affects the aperture
  
  
• - Affects the lens coupling to the body
  
  
• - The electronic teleconverters are more complicated and expensive.
  
  
• - GOOD teleconverters are expensive.
  
  
  • I can get a used manual macro lens cheaper than a new telecoverter.
    
    

• Bellows
  

• + Continuously adjustable, so easier to use than juggling extension tubes.
  
  
• + Dedicated bellows macro lenses are available.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Bellows are bulky and can be a hassle to use. Best used in a studio/controlled environment.
  
  
• - Good bellows may be hard to find today. The material of the older bellows may have deteriorated.
  
  
• - Affects the aperture
  
  
• - There is no lens coupling of any kind (AF, meter or aperture) with a bellows. It is completely manual.
  
  

• Macro Lens or a lens capable of the close up that you require
  

• Auto Focus in macro range is of questionable value. Many/most people manually focus macro stuff, so that they can choose what to focus on.
  
  
• In some cases you will not use the focusing ring on the lens to focus. The focusing ring is used to set the magnification ratio (the ratio is engraved on the lens), then use a focusing rail under the camera to focus by moving the camera+lens to/from the subject.
  
  

• + Best optical quality
  
  
• + If you can use the older manual macro lens on your camera, you can save a chunk of money.
  
  
  • I use the old Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro Nikkor lens on my D7200.
    
    
  [*]+ You can get a long focal length macro lens, to give you more working distance from the subject, than using a "normal lens" with a close up lens or extension tube.
   
  [*]- Most expensive option, if you buy a new AF lens.
  [*]- Not all manual lenses will work with all bodies, even from the same manufacturer. You need to check if the lens is compatible with your body, or if an adapter is made which will make it compatible.

I have likely missed other items in this list.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Gary Naka

I view the whole macro thing in stages, which are related to cost and complexity

• Close up lens/filters
  

• Even though the quality of the close up lens/filters is not great, for me it is "good enough." Remember, this is the cheapest option.
  
  
• Available in a 3 lens kit, for the basic 1-element lenses.
  
  

• Better optical quality 2-element close up lenses are available, for a higher cost. But these are not as common/easy to find as the basic 1 element kits.
  
  

• + Cheapest and easiest entry into the closeup world.
  
  
• + Close up lenses do not affect the aperture or lens coupling to the body.
  
  
   
  
  
• + Most compact to carry.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Lower optical quality, for the 1-element lens.
  
  
• - You buy for a specific diameter lens. So if you have several different diameter lenses, you may need more than 1 kit, which then increases the cost.
  
  
  • This is one reason in the old days, some camera manufacturers standardized on a single filter size for the common lenses. Nikon used 52mm filters for 24mm to 200mm. I think there were several other manufacturers who had a similar 1 or 2 standard filter size.
    
    

• Extension tubes.
  

• + For the old manual focus lenses, it was a great option, as the tube was quite simple, with maybe only an auto aperture lever. Good option if you have manual lenses.
  
  
   
  
  
• - The new electronic tubes, for the electronic lenses, are more complicated and expensive.
  
  
• - Affects the aperture.
  
  
• - Affects the lens coupling to the body.
  
  
• - Comes in fixed lengths. To get a different length, you need to swap or stack the tubes.
  
  

• Teleconverter
  

• + Gives you more working distance than any of the other options, except for getting a long focal length macro lens.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Affects the aperture
  
  
• - Affects the lens coupling to the body
  
  
• - The electronic teleconverters are more complicated and expensive.
  
  
• - GOOD teleconverters are expensive.
  
  
  • I can get a used manual macro lens cheaper than a new telecoverter.
    
    

• Bellows
  

• + Continuously adjustable, so easier to use than juggling extension tubes.
  
  
• + Dedicated bellows macro lenses are available.
  
  
   
  
  
• - Bellows are bulky and can be a hassle to use. Best used in a studio/controlled environment.
  
  
• - Good bellows may be hard to find today. The material of the older bellows may have deteriorated.
  
  
• - Affects the aperture
  
  
• - There is no lens coupling of any kind (AF, meter or aperture) with a bellows. It is completely manual.
  
  

• Macro Lens or a lens capable of the close up that you require
  

• Auto Focus in macro range is of questionable value. Many/most people manually focus macro stuff, so that they can choose what to focus on.
  
  
• In some cases you will not use the focusing ring on the lens to focus. The focusing ring is used to set the magnification ratio (the ratio is engraved on the lens), then use a focusing rail under the camera to focus by moving the camera+lens to/from the subject.
  
  

• + Best optical quality
  
  
• + If you can use the older manual macro lens on your camera, you can save a chunk of money.
  
  
  • I use the old Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro Nikkor lens on my D7200.
    
    
  [*]+ You can get a long focal length macro lens, to give you more working distance from the subject, than using a "normal lens" with a close up lens or extension tube.
   
  [*]- Most expensive option, if you buy a new AF lens.
  [*]- Not all manual lenses will work with all bodies, even from the same manufacturer. You need to check if the lens is compatible with your body, or if an adapter is made which will make it compatible.

I have likely missed other items in this list.

 

I don't think a description can get any more thorough and comprehensive than this one. Thank you for your time. Right now I have a set of tubes, a teleconverter and my macro lens will also arrive in a few days. The downside - all of them are for different cameras. The lens is for the digital, however, that's where I am usually picky about quality and edge to edge sharpness.

Another plus point for a bellows unit is that different fit lenses can be adapted to it.

 

For years I used a Pentax M42 bellows on my Nikon bodies. The conversion was relatively simple, and I almost exclusively used M39 enlarging lenses on the front end.

 

Those 40 year old bellows are still working perfectly and show no sign of wearing out yet!

 

That extension tubes affect the aperture isn't strictly true. The lens aperture is completely unaffected, but there is loss of light due to the added distance from lens to focal plane. This can be thought of as a change in effective aperture, but the size of 'hole' in the lens remains exactly the same.

 

As the saying goes 'you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs', and close-up or macro photography presents technical challenges.

 

Incidentally, front-of-lens 'diopters' achieve their close focusing by making the lens focal length shorter, and strictly speaking this does affect the aperture number.

RJ

You are correct, by aperture, I meant loss of light. Wrong terminology.

That calculation was one thing that scared me from using a bellows with film cameras.

With digital, I don't waste film/money doing that, I can experimentally get to the correct exposure, and all it cost me is time.

Depth-of-field will be whatever the effective aperture and focal length of the lens dictate.

• The depth of field depends only on the (effective) relative aperture (r/stop) and the absolute magnification of the subject. Another words, if you adjust your position so that the subject is the same size in the image, the perspective changes but the DOF remains the same. You get the same results if you crop the image before enlargement.
  
• Extension tubes and tele-converters both affect the relative aperture - fixed for a TC but variable for an extension tube, depending on the length of the tube and focal length of the lens.
  
• A TC magnifies the image (and effective focal length) without changing the closest focusing distance or infinity. An extension tube reduces the closes focusing distance and makes it impossible to focus at infinity.
  
• You can attach either the TC or the extension tube to the camera, an stack the other device on top, before the lens. The effect is somewhat different, however. A TC on the lens increases the effective focal length, so the extension tube has proportionately less effect on close focusing distance and relative aperture.
  
• A closeup lens (aka filter) reduces the effective focal length without affecting the relative aperture, so that when the lens is set to infinity, the distance to the film plane to the subject is the reciprocal of the diopter value in meters - plus 3 diopter is 1/3rd meter. Achromatic diopter lenses (two elements) work relatively well, compared to single element lenses.
  
• Zoom lenses work normally when used with a TC, but are no longer even close to parfocal (focus tracks zoom level) when used with an extension tube. If you adjust the zoom, you must refocus. Some tubes (e.g., Kenko) have contacts which allow auto-focus with AF-S and other lenses.
  

I have produced very good results with either or both TC and extension tubes on non-macro lenses for closeups in the field. The maximum magnification ratio generally falls between 1:2 and 1:4 (a postcard sized subject area), adequate for most flower and fungi photos. They allow the use of a long lens or zoom with a long working distance, A true macro lens is better at closer distances.

My Sigma 50 f/2.8 Macro has arrived finally. First of all, that lens stinks of 80s. Not good 80s, but the bad, trashy ones. Some parts of it are metal, but it's plastic on the outside, which is covered with some rubber-like substance that was coming off, pretty sticky and I had to disassemble it. There was the most surprising thing of all - focusing grip was attached to helicoid with nothing else but aluminum sticky tape. I've never seen such cheap "solution" in any of old M42 lenses, or normal Pentax lenses, not to mention Olympus Zuikos which are too sophisticated for me to take apart completely.

 

But in spite of cheap build it's a proper macro lens with floating element inside. I suspect it can go down to 1:1 as well, but can't confirm since all the writings are missing (thanks to that stickiness mentioned before). And what's best of all - it's got one small contact that allows my K-x to read aperture setting and allows me to shoot in my beloved aperture priority mode.

 

Not so bad for 25$, considering that it came with fully functional Pentax ME Super body. I can graft a normal 50 mm f/2 lens on it and sell it for 30$ or so - such things sell well in Georgia, especially if they have both - auto and manual modes.

 

I will still buy a t-con to make my 70-300 reach even further, but I'm done with extension tubes.